Thread: OBAMA is being sued for Lying about he being Native Born

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3Nt ... anger.html

"OBAMA is being sued for Lying about he being Native Born"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[img]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/HP_ADM~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/at-logo.gif[/img]
Return to the Article
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpag ... anger.html
October 11, 2008
This could be the game changer (updated)

By Thomas Lifson


Someone with the unlikely name of Molotov Mitchell has produced a 10 minute and 52 second video [watch it below] that could well change the terms of the election -- if enough people watch it. Illuminati Productions has posted it to YouTube. They have provided the voting public a very professionally and engagingly done video generation equivalent of a long detailed article in a place like American Thinker.


It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. You can't get most voters to focus on print media in order to entertain a series of hard questions on what seems like a far-fetched notion. Especially those voters who rely on the Big Media. They figure that if this were true, they would have heard about it from the old familiar faces.

But you can get people to watch 11 minutes of interesting video raising a slew of questions for Obama, in fact cornering him, on the question of his birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office as POTUS under the Constitution. Especially if people start talking about the video. It's called viral distribution. A friend emails an Obama-supporting friend and dares him or her to watch.


A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as factual data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.


We are talking about the Presidency and this guy stonewalls?


The only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his suposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over. So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.

If this video gets widely viewed and discussed, Obama's support will crumble in the face of continued stonewalling.

I am grateful for the efforts of the people who put this op together. It is brilliantly timed. I do know that there are one or more smart Democrats who haven't forgiven Obama and who don't want to see him elected. They know how to design and implement really effective plans to get things done.

They might even want to get Obama thrown off the ballot and replaced by the second place finisher before Election Day. Or, if the Democratic Party stonewalls and the court delays, pick up the pieces.



Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Update: All the filings to date in the court action of Philip Berg are available here.

Update: Based on comments and email, it is evidently necessary to point out that Berg may or may not be correct in the factual assertions claimed in this video and, more importantly, in his court filings. Determining the factual basis is the responsibility of the court, based on filings provided by both parties. I have no way of knowing whether Berg is a kook on this issue or not.

The important point is that the Obama campaign has not chosen to confront Berg's claims in a straightforward manner. That is a fact. Posting two different electronic images of an alleged birth certificate does not carry weight in court. Nor do the opinions of organizations like factcheck.org or snopes.com. The only version of a birth certificate that would matter is one submitted to court and attested to as valid, under penalty of perjury, and subject to forensic examination.

It may be the case that Berg is completely wrong. If so, the Obama campaign could have submitted documentation to the court quashing this case. Instead, it has chosen to engage in a legal strategy of delay. Why would they do this if Obama's documentation were in order? Why would they only provide electronic (so far as I know) copies to friendly sources? Perhaps someone can explain that satisfactorily, but I cannot.


Page Printed from: American Thinker: This could be the game changer (updated) at October 14, 2008 - 12:27:55 PM EDT

I am just dying too see Someone from the msm blast Obama and the DNC on this!!!! Something is up and the DNC know that they nominated a candidate that cannot be potus and are delying to create fakes and cover it up.

Here’s the problem I have with this: The implication that because Obama was born on foreign soil he is not legally a citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of POTUS might also substantiate the argument that simply being born on American soil bestows citizenship. Confirming that contention would be disastrous, as it would also legitimize the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, giving citizenship to millions of anchor babies. There is just no way in hell I can believe that the 14th Amendment was crafted without considering the potential of the very nightmare we are mired in. I could be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct me if I am.

Better to determine whether or not he holds a dual citizenship, which should by anyone’s account make him ineligible to serve as POTUS.

Originally Posted by melena29

Here’s the problem I have with this: The implication that because Obama was born on foreign soil he is not legally a citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of POTUS might also substantiate the argument that simply being born on American soil bestows citizenship. Confirming that contention would be disastrous, as it would also legitimize the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, giving citizenship to millions of anchor babies. There is just no way in hell I can believe that the 14th Amendment was crafted without considering the potential of the very nightmare we are mired in. I could be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct me if I am.

Better to determine whether or not he holds a dual citizenship, which should by anyone’s account make him ineligible to serve as POTUS.

That's exactly what it means. In order to be eligible for POTUS you must be "natural-born", at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for at least 14 years.

The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to wrongly give natural born status to children of illegal aliens. This loophole must be closed.

Originally Posted by melena29

Here’s the problem I have with this: The implication that because Obama was born on foreign soil he is not legally a citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of POTUS might also substantiate the argument that simply being born on American soil bestows citizenship. Confirming that contention would be disastrous, as it would also legitimize the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, giving citizenship to millions of anchor babies. There is just no way in hell I can believe that the 14th Amendment was crafted without considering the potential of the very nightmare we are mired in. I could be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct me if I am.

Better to determine whether or not he holds a dual citizenship, which should by anyone’s account make him ineligible to serve as POTUS.

It seems that because these two constitutional principles you raise are found in different places in the Constitution there would not be a consequent effect from one to the other. After all it is not like we have to have some underlying, unifying theory of "why" something is in the constitution; we just know that it is there.

Congress wanted to include a high bar for candidates for the US presidency; it could have been drafted however they pleased but they wanted only native born citizens applying. OTOH, the 14th Amendment seeks to define who can be an American citizen. As far as "considering the present nightmare" the US might have had a fair number of Mexican emigres in those days, but hordes from the rest of LAtin America, too?

Thanks miguelina and Captainron,

Since our Constitution has been do disastrously trampled on with regard to the citizenship issue (among a host of many others), I thought it prudent to give this possibility some consideration. I don't put anything past these illegal thugs and their enablers.

Here's my theory. Why don't we don't hear the Republican party mentioning this about Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure they must know about it. Maybe they are waiting for the right time? Think about it. If they blast the Democrats with it right now, Obama would have to drop out, leaving Hillary 3 weeks to campaign and re-engage her supporters. But if they wait until the last week before the election, the media would be so busy beating to death this new discovery that she would hardly even be heard. That hands McCain the White House.

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Here's my theory. Why don't we don't hear the Republican party mentioning this about Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure they must know about it. Maybe they are waiting for the right time? Think about it. If they blast the Democrats with it right now, Obama would have to drop out, leaving Hillary 3 weeks to campaign and re-engage her supporters. But if they wait until the last week before the election, the media would be so busy beating to death this new discovery that she would hardly even be heard. That hands McCain the White House.

Either that, tiny, or both parties are in on the coup..the NWO and NAU.

Hi MKFarnum and other readers,

Q. If this doesn't get adjudicated until after Obama is sworn in, can he be impeached (assuming that the trial concludes that he isn't eligible for the presidency)?

Q. Would he be impeached? Of course not, Reid and Pelosi will protect him.

Q. If the court concludes that Obama was, in fact, born in Kenya, or relinquished his citizenship while resideing in Indonesia (or both), can he be charged with criminal fraud?

Thanks MKFarnum, for posting the link to the video.

Coto